A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

This whole line of argument boils down to presuming that some uncalculated rate of alleles excised from a population by speciation is somehow always greater than the uncalculated rate of alleles added to a population by mutation.Since you don't have any metrics on anything you have no argument. The amount of alleles being lost is non-zero. The amount of alleles being added by mutation is non-zero. Therefore all you have is your hope that somehow somewhere scientists can calculate these things and that they would fit your scenario.It is NOT "obvious" as you are probably going to claim that the loss is greater than the gain. You can keep asking for beneficial mutations all you want. I would suggest that some of the be turned around and ask you for examples of allele loss. This is being talked about like some common day occurrence while beneficial mutation is some kind of hyper rare event. So then show us how common allele loss is.In fact we know that beneficial mutations can be not only common but often entirely predictable. Populations of bacteria will almost always develop resistance to anti-biotics for example. Not only are the mutations happening, the same ones are happening repeatedly.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Being that human eyes and compond eyes did not evolve from eachother your question is fatally misplaced. You will never find a string of mutations that have a human eye "lead" to a compound eye. The mutations the created the various eyes are changes from a more primitive eye that is very similar to the current one. This will seperate for each type of eye that you discussed. If they could show it to occur, this would completely invalidate the ToE. I hope you undersand this and that by such statements you are operating with a vastly uninformed knowledge of the ToE.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

There is a route, backwards from the compound eye to the potentially no-eyed common ancestory and then back up via the speciation event that split the two group and to the development of the non-compound eye. Being that this would require a time machine your requirement that we watch this path is invalid.There is no HORIZONTAL route between a compond eye and a human eye. That is the point you don't seem to understand and it is very obviously founded in a quite severe cae of ignorance of what the ToE actualy says.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

What that is evidence for is that the development of the HOX gene for eyes was present in the common ancestor for both the drosophilia and a mouse.Let me ask you this MJ, do you know what a HOX gene is?The gene in question describes the placement and location of the eyes. IN the case of a fly and a mouse, both of them have 2 eyes located on the head segment of their body near the top. In their common ancestor, the EYE ITSELF may have been nothing more than a light sensitive patch of skin. The only reason anyone is proposing a developmental pathway between the two is because YOU ASKED for INVALID AND IRRATIONAL evidence that there is a HORIZONTAL pathway between the two.That you cannot see that your request is rediculous AND based on a faulty characture of the ToE only inhibits your ability to support your argument. You are doing nothing but torching an effigy of the ToE based on your requirment of lab verified horizontal pathway.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You are conflating two completely seperate issues. Just because we cannot test in a lab the particular divergent evolutionary pathway for a particular trait does not preclude that they CANNOT form via successive mutation! It would be equivalent to saying that because we cannot necessarily calcuate the precise trajectory of a ball that was thrown after it has hit the ground means that we cannot know anything about the trajectory and that the whole theory of gravity needs to be questioned.No only are you assulting a fortress with a B-B-Gun you are firing it in the wrong direction. Then explain to us what they do, becaues it seems quite aparent that you have no clue what HOX genes actually are based on what you are claiming they show about evolution.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

fallacy cop brings up a good point although I would like to expand upon it.In order to show an increase in diversity it is sufficient to show a situation where there is the mere existance of new alleles where they were known not to occur before. Showing that there was 32 possibile alleles and now there is 33 is not necessary. No counting needed. Faith's requirement is wholly excessive.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Can you please explain this and why you believe it to be true?Did you really mean to have the 'non' in 'non-mutational'? This seems contrary to what the ToE states.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I think that clarifies.I would like to point out one thing though and I would hope that this might recieve a number of responses from participants in this thread especially Faith.When has it ever been SHOWN that speciation can occur by the mere loss of alleles when populations diverge?Maybe someone did spell this out and I just missed it in the mix. There is a lot of talk going on about how things can speciate by a decrease in diversity. Faith did a good job of trying to establish this as a basis for talking about if mutation can THEN be the cause of increasing diversity. I just don't recall when if ever anyone established if this speciating via loss ONLY can even happen or HAS EVER happened.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This echos what I was trying to say in Message 281. It might be good fodder for a continuation of this thread.In short, when did it become a given that allelic reduction can cause speciation? This whole thread has been based on that and it has NEVER been established.Edited by Jazzns, : wrong link

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)